tphuangMaybe the reason several of us have repeatedly asked for your source, not to mention some trace amount of information from your source, is that your original reply smacked of arrogance and ignorance. Why are you so quick to downplay one source when you offer absolutely no evidence of your own?
repeatedly? I got that once from you and didn’t figure there is any point giving you the source if you can’t speak Chinese anyways. And decided it was time to do this called sleep. And then I don’t come back to AFM for a couple of days and get smacked with your accusations. I’m doing my due diligence now and checking up AFM everyday. happy?
Go brush up on the South African-Pakistan defense contracts, since it appears you’re not very familiar with them. No one here is diminishing the defense relationship between Pakistan and China, but Pakistan does have other defense suppliers. South Africa is no slouch either when it comes to defense wares, for instance, look at the lineage of the MRAP vehicles in service with the US Army, or their AAMs and munitions.
I’m very familiar with it, the only thing they can offer up is darter. Is that a lot to you? Do you have an idea how many times I’ve read on PDF that they are getting Darter and then after a while, it’s not taken up? Yes, PAF ACM have said in the past that Darter is evaluated, but as things stand, Iris-T is the most prominent non-Chinese AAM that’s been talked about. If people want to keep harping on speculations from a few years back to back up there argument, then that’s not my problem.
As for MRAP, do you really want to get into the entire force protection situation?
You mentioned Al-Khalid tank, manufactured with collaboration between Pakistan China and Ukarain. China might have taken a divergent route in tank development, commensurate with its economic / military standing and status, but Al-Khalid is not a rejected project of China. On the contrary, it is a very successful project for Pakistani requirements. Successful and potent to the extent that to counter it, Indians had to hurriedly import hundred of ready assembled Russian tanks.
I have seen Al-Khalids being assembled, and have seen non-Chinese fire control, imaging sub assemblies etc., on the production line. Talking so arrogantly of Chinese technical prowesses, would you Just care to answer ONE question: Given the strong relationship with China, why would Pakistan go to the trouble of importing Ukarainians engines and other parts for Al-Khalid tanks?
Read what I wrote, I said that it is based on it. And yes, it’s well known that MBT-2000 was rejected by China.
For the same reason, Pakistan would not buy J-10 in its present form, as it is NOT good enough for Pakistani requirements. Chinese have been told to improve it on many fronts (avionics, multi role capabilities etc.).
If J-10, in its present state, was good enough and China could supply a compareable quality plane to F-16 52+, Pakistan would not have ordered any F-16’s from an un-reliable and untrustworthy supplier as America.
I’ve explained this situation many times, but obviously you never read it. China and Pakistan has different requirements. China uses J-10 as an air superiority platform, whereas PAF clearly wants to use it for more multi-role tasks, you obviously don’t want to use the same radar for it. Export versions are never going to be the same as domestic. So, they have to negotiate on what kind of requirements PAF is looking for, then the domestic radar producers can come up with something. That’s what happened with JF-17. And also, purchase of J-10 already cut F-16 order by 35-40. As for F-16 block 52+ vs J-10, do you really want to get into it? That’s a whole debate i don’t feel like getting into. btw, it was your PAF ACM that said J-10 is better than F-16, not me. It was your PAF ACM that said plus-one competition was between J-10, Gripen and F-16 (which J-10 own). Not me. Get it straight.
Like Israel, South Africa has a competent missile industry and developed its own lineage of IR SRAAMs during the Apartheid years. Infact, there has been much covert cooperation between the aforementioned countries. A-Darter, although it has not entered service yet, promises to be an excellent modern SRAAM – in many respects very reminiscent of an ASRAAM with TVC. U-Darter seems to resemble the French Magic II in shape and performance.
I don’t see how that changes the situation. The 5th generation SRAAM talked about right now is Iris-T.
So that absolutely MUST mean that the same has happened with this cruise missile?
no, but there is plenty of precedence
Babur resembles a Tomahawk far more closely than YJ-62. If pictures commonly credited as such really do show the DH-10 then it is a better match but still not as close as the TLAM. Not to mention the fact that cruise missiles of this type have an undeniable tendency to look very much alike, Babur has about as many similarities to Club as to YJ-62.
I said Babur got inspiration from Chinese projects. (including dropped ones that have never had released photos) I didn’t say Babur is a replica. And considering the chance of US helping out Pakistan on this, you know what that points to.
OTOH, why NOT? There are a number of sources that suggest a South African connection, who is to say that there isn’t a fire belonging to all this smoke? Just because you haven’t taken the time to familiarize yourself with South African ALCM and SRAAM developments that doesn’t mean they don’t exist or offer underwhelming performance.
Are you talking about the web page to a cruise missile that is still in development? Compare this to the country that actually is at least in its second generation of cruise missiles and is by far Pakistan’s top exporter?
tphuangMy Lord!! How many times ACM have mentioned 5th gen WVR and given list of missiles that includes A-Darter? You call this rumors? If you are willing to dismiss ACM PAF as petty rumor monger than i guess there is nothing we can argue on.
how the heck is A-Darter a 5th gen WVR? The 5th generation WVR talked about is mainly Iris-T. What is so great about these Darters anyways? You guys talked about in the past about using Grifo for a long time too, did that happen?
You are willing to bet on a transfer of a “cancelled” chinese cruise missile program but something that has been developed from MUPSOW which has been mentioned in Pakistani context time and again you feel reluctant. I am dumbfounded.
Yes, we normally have multiple programs, one get chosen for domestic requirements and the rejected ones are offered for export. Yep, stuff like AnJian UCAV is a rejected one.
For example, MBT-2000 that ended up forming the basis for Al-Khalid for you guys. JF-17 being an export project of CAC.
Which Chinese ALCM programs ? We hardly know any to begin with. They are all secret. The YJ-XX based CMs hardly resemble Babur or Ra’ad in many ways.
KD-63, DH-10, YJ-8 series after getting turbojet motor, YJ-62, YJ-12, these we have all seen pictures as in active service. You hardly know any? And you are saying there is no similarities between YJ-62 and Babur?
Blasstic missile program and Cruise missile program are related ? You mean BMs sharing propulsion guidance and designs?? I would think they are world aparts. Pakistan has been acquiring South African technology specially H2/H4 long before Babur came into picture.
nope, if Pakistan gets help from China in ballistic missiles and basically everything else in its military, why would you think it’s going to be different with cruise missiles?
I really don’t see where we are going with this argument. You are not willing to look at it in an objective manner and being argumentative. This is my last post on the matter. You are entitled to your opinion and i respect that.
great, cause I’ve seen too many posters whose views are that Chinese systems are not good enough for Pakistan and somehow Turkey and South Africa will be more advanced.
tphuangA-Darter has been mentioned for JF-17 time and again by ACM himself. Please don’t tell me you and your “alleged” source know more about JF-17 program than ACM PAF. There has been alot that has been said about Mupsaw and raptor exports to PAF. DefenseJournal(a pakistani military magzine) wrote about H2/H4 connection with the former. And even more than that people who are closely linked to these programs and PAF have talked about it regularly, but you won’t happen to know them because you are busy swallowing your “chinese source” hook line and snicker.
where?
why don’t you show a picture of JF-17 using A-Darter? I have been saying right from the start that JF-17 will use Chinese avionics + weapons. We’ve been hearing these rumours about darter for ages, has it happened? no.
http://www.saairforce.co.za/the-airforce/weapons/61/torgos-cruise-missile
Search for “torgos cruise missile” and you will find enough links . let me try again to give you some more links.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/R.20050310.CruiseMiss/R.20050310.CruiseMiss.pdfhttp://www.missilethreat.com/repository/doclib/20001000-IFPA-cruisemissilepuzzle.pdf
Pictures of both Mupsow and Torgos included
http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/NAIC2000.pdf
from your south african air force link, all it shows is a missile that’s still in development, great!
missilethreat has never been none as a solid source
Tphuang,
to be fair, enough evidence has been produced above. Now, rather than continuing with uncalled for arrogance, do the honourable thing, and don’t keep digging deeper and deeper the hole that you have dug for yourself. I am surprised that a knowledgeable and time honoured defence poster like yourself had not heard of “torgos cruise missile” before?
why would I hear of a non-impressive cruise missile that is still in development? Do the honourable thing? Let’s see:
There is far more military cooperation bw China and Pakistan
China has multiple generations of ALCM in service (including ones that go in the 1500-2000 km range)
From all look of it, Barbur got a lot of inspiration from Chinese projects.
The ballistic missile programs of Pakistan also got their roots from China.
But now, Raad somehow got roots from this South African cruise missile still in development.
than why dismiss other sources?
again, the point that really ticked me off is Google implying that I somehow have to come on this forum, just so I can give him the source. I’m not allowed to have a live outside of Internet now?
tphuangIt’s important because you authoritatively claimed that the ALCM possessed no South African heritage, based on your source. From what others have posted, it appears you are wrong.
one leads to a dead link and gets no result on google, the other is a target drone.
Now if your source is real, perhaps we can get to the heart of the matter and get some idea of where this Pakistani project is coming from. For starters, you could try providing some details from your sources.
Do you speak Chinese? Maybe you can go talk to him. Do you think Pakistanis would’ve developed Barbur without Chinese help? How would Raad be any different.
Oh yeah, and what is up with this “We’re still waiting to hear what your source(s) had to say on the matter.”
I have to check on AFM everyday now? I can’t have a live anymore?
U-darter is probably just the tip of iceburg.
point to some then. Don’t give this JF-17 using Darters, because it’s not going to happen. The F-7s don’t use Darters. The J-10 are not going to use darters. And F-16s are not going to use Darters.
As for which air launched CM south africa has ever produced, lookup TORGOS
http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.or…album=19&pos=1
your link doesn’t shown anything, google doesn’t show anything. Why don’t you bring up a missile that actually joined service somewhere.
tphuangWe’re still waiting to hear what your source(s) had to say on the matter.
It’s a Chinese source. What more do you need to know? If you believe it, believe it. If you don’t believe it, don’t believe it.
Let’s put it this way, what air launched cruise missile has South Africa ever produced?
tphuangU-Darter was produced in Pakistan by PIA Precision Engineering with PAF specific modifications. It was displayed in IDEAS , you’ll find enough pictures of its various parts and its seeker from IDEAS on PakDef. Mirages were equipped with U-Darter.
Now may i ask you what is your source ?
It’s a Chinese source.
As for U-Darter? Never heard of it.
tphuangAnd who are your “sources”? It’s not unreasonable to suspect South African missile transfer technologies beyond the Darters.
The Pakistanis don’t use any darters as far as I know.
tphuang*****Fair Use*****
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007
Jane’s Missiles & Rockets – September 01, 2007
________________________________________
Pakistan tests Hatf 8 air-launched cruise missile
Doug Richardson EditorPakistan successfully tested an air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) named Hatf 8 (Ra’ad) on 25 August 2007. The designation ‘Ra’ad’ means ‘Thunder’ in Arabic. Following the flight, President General Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz congratulated the scientists and engineers involved in the project.
Described by Pakistan as having “a range of 350 km for now”, Hatf 8 is intended to provide what were described as “a variety of Pakistan’s air platforms” with a strategic standoff capability against land and sea targets. According to the official Pakistani announcement of the flight, the missile “has a low detection probability due to stealth design and the materials used in its manufacturing”.
The new missile is designed to carry “all types of warheads” and has an accuracy comparable to that of the longer-ranged Hatf 7 Babur cruise missile that was tested for the first time in August 2005. Press reports of the flight have taken the phrase “all types of warheads” to imply that the new missile was designed to carry a nuclear payload.
The nuclear warheads carried by the Hatf 4 and 6 ballistic missiles are believed to weigh 700 kg. The original version of the Hatf 5 (Ghauri) carries a 1,200 kg warhead, but the improved Ghauri missile (possibly known as Ghauri 2) has a 700 kg payload. These figures are heavier than the maximum payload that can be carried by most air-launched cruise missiles, which are typically around 400 kg and account for around 30-40 per cent of the launch weight of a subsonic cruise missile.
The size and weight of the Hatf 7 suggests that Pakistan is developing lighter nuclear warheads. One of the payload options for this Tomahawk ‘look-alike’ is a 450 kg 10-35 kT nuclear warhead. The Pakistan Air Force does not operate any bomber aircraft, having retired its Martin B-57B light bombers in 1985. Its highest-performance attack aircraft are the Dassault Mirage 5, which can carry a maximum ordnance load of four tonnes, and the Lockheed Martin F-16A fighter aircraft, which can manage around nine tonnes.
In practice, the maximum weight of any single weapon is constrained by what a single hardpoint can carry. On the F-16, the heaviest loads can be carried on the two inboard underwing stations, each of which is rated at 2,041 kg for manoeuvring flight at 5.5 g. Unless there are plans to use the Lockheed Martin C-130E/H as a cruise missile carrier, it is likely that the Hatf 8 has been sized for carriage on the inboard underwing stations of the F-16A and the planned F-16C force.
Given that the US has successfully tested its Tomahawk naval cruise missile in the air-launched role, it would been logical for Pakistan to follow the same route by creating an air-launched version of the 1,500 kg Hatf 7. Had this been done, the range of the resulting weapon could have been expected to match the 700 km of the latter missile.
Hatf-8 was indigenously developed, said the official announcement. However, the modest range of the missile raises the possibility that it is a new design developed with the assistance of another country that was unwilling to collaborate on a programme what would breach the range and payload restrictions of the international Missile Technology Control Regime.
In another, separate article on JDW September 12, 2007, again on the Raad, there is mention of the following:
“A senior Western defence analyst in Islamabad said the Raad could be mounted on the JF-17 fighter aircraft jointly being developed by Pakistan and China and the J-10 fighter that Pakistan plans to purchase from China.
The Raad test-launch took place from a Pakistani Dassault Mirage and not a Chinese aircraft, which points to the missile possibly being one of Pakistan’s South African-inspired projects as opposed to a Chinese-derived missile.
The Pakistan air force (PAF) intends to buy 250 JF-17 fighters, while negotiations are continuing for the purchase of up to 40 J-10s. The JF-17 has been jointly produced by China’s Chengdu aircraft industries and Pakistan Aeronautical complex at Kamra in northern Pakistan, while the J-10 has been produced by Chengdu alone.”This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always
have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. this site is
making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of
defence, military, world strategic developments, anti-terrorism issues and
tactics, humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use any
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
not a chance raad is south african inspired. According to my sources, it’s based on a dropped Chinese project.
tphuangas I just posted on SDF
alright, listening to the guy talking about J-10’s avionics now from http://www.szccf.com.cn/movie_content.asp?id=301
– he said that avionics are very import, but are also very expensive
– J-10 cost 200 million Yuan each, export to Pakistan would probably be 300 million each
– out of that, 100 million is spent on the avionics, takes 10 years to develop
– one is DCFS (Digital Flight Control Systems), which allows pilot to control the plane with displayed information
– talks about the FBW computer, which does 500 K calculation per second (that’s not even 1 MHz!, what?)
– other is mission computer, you just plug in the mission and the fighter will tell you what to do
– then talks about INS (inertial navigational system), you can go from Beijing to Shenzhen with this and only be off by 500 m
– and the other is CADC (central air data computer), it is used to detect the temperature, dew point, wind direction/speed and stuff like that.
– other is SMS (store management system), this is the system controlling the launching of missiles and bombs (it has to calculate how high you are launching certain weapons and your speed to achieve optimize results)
– radar – can detect up to 150 km (here is interesting part, he mentions that F-22 can only do 170 km, but that is vs 1 m^2 target, I doubt J-10 is facing that size to get to 150 km, maybe 3 m^2 or 5 M^2?)
– CNI – communication/navigation/identification, plane has wide band, narrow band (different types of waves that it’s sending and receiving), didn’t really talk about datalink or IFF, but I’m guessing that’s part of this
– EMS – (electronic counter measure system?) – not much said
talks about a fighter jet is like a networked computer system with many sub parts, each has a computer that can do half to 1 million calculations per second. Also, they take up very little space.
That’s about it on J-10’s avionics.
tphuangDuring the cold war, third nations were fighting wars for the Superpowers.
In the years ahead China could try to do something like that however the main problem is Taiwan, Taiwan by it self could create a nuclear war, the only way China can take Taiwan is if the West does not react to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
if Taiwan is effectively taken and annexed by China then what can assure the Chinese will stop there? they still have territorial disputes with several neighbours, if China invades Taiwan and later takes by force other countries, china would need to avoid direct confrontation with Russia and the US, even if these nations are like England and France when Germany took Czekoslovakia and Austria, an Asian Poland will mean nuclear war and the combined nuclear stocks of Russia and the US are capable of wiping out China.
At this moment China can not take Taiwan, the US prescence in Asia and the Russian miliatry are capable of defeating China.
Russia does need troops to stop China, Russia olny needs TOPOLS and ICBMs.
In 2007 Russia has enough power to assure China won`t invade Siberia by military means.
In 2007 Russia only is uncapable of stoping illegal immigration however China won`t be able of taking Siberia by those means too, illegal immigrants have no political power and Russia simply can opt for never legalizing those illegal immigrants and simply deport them will be the best strategy to fight Chinese encroachment over the russian siberia.
The best strategy for China is foster the economic conditions that can create an economic link strong enough to assure globalization will erease the racial and cultural differences with Russia in a way the economic integration of both nations leads to a social and political integration as Europe did or even NAFTA is supposed to do
what the heck? who is talking about China trying to invade Russia here? Only the Russians have this kind of weird paranoia.
tphuangThat’s nonsense. I would trust the British press a lot more than either the Chinese or Russian ones. That doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes, but to imply they’re somehow “especially unreliable” on China/Russia because critics live here is not logical. Making vague comments about “spy and dissidents” is childish.
If you want to say any newspaper report from anywhere should be taken with a pinch of salt, no problem.
What I find interesting is that the article implies China is still essentially laying claim to parts of the Russian Far East, despite the fact officially it recognised Russian control of it some years ago. I thought that China had given up its claims, but maybe it was an act – certainly some Chinese I have talked to don’t believe China honestly gave up its claims back then, or at the least a future Chinese government could still assert its rights over it.
lol, one Russian exile’s view has more credit than China’s official position all of these years.
tphuangPersonally, I find it hard to believe that India would not be concern with China’s access to Russian Equipment………………end of story? I think not!:rolleyes:
India should be far more concerned that China is no longer buying Russian equipments.
What do you think of the writer’s opinion about the Chinese military exercises in September 2006?
paranoia, China already resolved its borders issues with Russia. For the forseeable future, China’s focus is on Taiwan, US and Japan. China needs Russia and vice versa.
tphuangWhat Pinkov did was take an old issue and printed it to make it sound like its new, despite that the issues behind has been particularly SOLVED. China bought extra OLS-31Es for the IRSTs for example—it is interesting to note that the J-11s uses the uprated OLS-31E typically used on the Su-30s rather than the standard OLS-27 of the Su-27SK.
The IL-76 issue has been resolved. China will pay the extra but Russia will throw in more features on the aircraft. A new date has been set for delivery.
China is buying engines for the FC-1s and J-10s.
China does not appear to have any need for any more stuff though, except probably upgrades on the two of the Sovs and the RIF-M on the 051Cs.
are you sure about il-76? I haven’t read anything on it.
tphuangThe Agni 2 has range of around 3k, The Agni 2AT has more range than that, The Agni 3 has range with full payload of around 5k++, The Agni 3++/3SL/4 will have range with full payload of over 8k which is a further developement of Agni 3, If we see any SLBM it will be the Agni 3SL, It will be a M51 class missile in a bit of dimensions et al.
You can check regarding Agni series here all with official links.
not questioning the range factor, more the submarine launched factor. As seen with the recent Bulava tests, a lot of difficulties in converting BM into SLBM.
tphuangwell, i’m working on a blog entry that replies to this crazy assertion that everything on 054A is copied from the Russians. Same with Zhuk-8II.
Sign In
